No accountability for Benghazi

September 11, 2012, an attack in Benghazi left a number of Americans injured (who've never been named in the press but whose number is around at least thirty -- as disclosed in multiple Congressional hearings) and left Americans Tyrone Woods, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty dead.  Stevens became the first US Ambassador killed in an attack since February 1979 when Ambassador Adolph Dubs was killed by assailants who kidnapped him him in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Lies surrounded the attack. At one point the administration wrongly and falsely blamed the attack on a YouTube video.  Lies surrounded what followed.  Here's White House fluffer Michael Tomasky writing of Charlene Lamb and others at the State Dept on December 20th:

Lamb is the best-known (because her name has already been in the press a bit) State Department employee relieved of her duties in the wake of the department's internal report on the Benghazi Sept. 11 attacks. Three employees were sacked, and apparently, says NPR, a fourth one, Eric Boswell, has also quit. The report was quite critical of the consulate's overreliance on local security and especially of a failure at Foggy Bottom to respond in a reasonable way to the repeated requests from Benghazi for more security.

And there you have it. Mistakes were made. The department studied the situation and assessed it. Four people have lost their jobs. That sounds like accountability to me. There's your "Watergate," wingnuts. This whole political hubbub has been a travesty and an outrage.




That was never true. You'll note Tomasky has never corrected his ignorance.

None of the four were fired.

They were placed on administrative leave -- paid leave.

And now they've got new jobs at the State Dept.  There is no accountability.  We'll cover it in tomorrow's snapshot, there's no room for it in today's so I'm noting it in its own entry.

Spokesperson Marie Harf delivered the news today. Click on photo below to stream video of the press briefing.



  Daily Press Briefing - August 20, 2013 August 20, 2013


From the transcript of today's State Dept press briefing:



QUESTION: Can we just ask quickly about the State Department employees before we get to Egypt? Because I know this could take a long time.


MS. HARF: I think both could take a while, but let’s start with that, and then we’ll go to Egypt, yes.


QUESTION: Okay. Is it true that Secretary Kerry has not issued any kind of disciplinary action – formal disciplinary – against the four employees who were criticized in the investigative report? And are they back at work?


MS. HARF: The State Department has determined that the four officials who were placed on administrative leave following the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board’s report should be reassigned to different positions within the Department, and they will be returning to work. The State Department’s own review over the last months reaffirmed the findings of the ARB, that there was no breach of duty by these four employees, and that coupled with our efforts to strengthen security, the right answer for these four was reassignment. What we’re focused on at the State Department is making sure we’re doing everything in our power to prevent another tragedy even though we recognize that we operate in a volatile and dangerous world, and everyone from the Secretary on down is squarely focused on moving forward to strengthen security and protect our people and our facilities all around the world. Clearly, we know we can never completely eliminate the risk, but we are firmly committed to making sure we do everything we can to stand by our people in the field.


QUESTION: Are they back at work?


MS. HARF: I don’t have specific details about when they will actually start back at work, but as of today, yes, they have new assignments.


QUESTION: Was the independent Accountability Review Board then wrong in its assessment of the account of what happened that night?


MS. HARF: Well, no. Actually, what I just said, I think, is that the State Department’s own review which has taken place over these months actually reaffirmed the Accountability Review Board’s findings, which were that they saw serious concerns – or concerns with some of the steps and actions of these four individuals, but that they did not determine that there had been a breach of duty. So what we’ve done over these past few months is go back and look at all the facts and also take into account the totality of these four employees’ overall careers at the State Department, and what we found in that review is that many of – they have served honorably, often in very tough places, and that was all taken into account. But actually I would disagree with the notion of your question. I think our review reaffirmed the ARB’s –


QUESTION: But the ARB did say that the actions that were taken were – and I’m using the quote that the ARB used --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- was – “were inadequate.” Is that correct?


MS. HARF: I don’t have that quote in front of me.


QUESTION: And those actions were made by these four individuals?


MS. HARF: I know that when it comes specifically to these four individuals that we’re talking about today, that specific part, that they said – the ARB found that there had been a lack of proactive leadership and management abilities specifically regarding what happened in Benghazi.


QUESTION: Specifically regarding these four individuals?


MS. HARF: Correct, but that there was no breach of duty.


QUESTION: Who are back to work today?


MS. HARF: But that there’s no breach of duty. So the State Department reaffirmed that same finding and made a decision that all four would return to work, but they would be reassigned.


QUESTION: Marie.


MS. HARF: Yes, Jill.


QUESTION: When you say “no breach of duty” --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- are you speaking legalese here? In other words, is this a bureaucratic decision by the State Department that according to the rules of the State Department, you can’t fire somebody because “no breach of duty?” Is that – you’re being very precise?


MS. HARF: Well, “breach of duty” is a technical term, yes. And as I said, the ARB did not find that there was a breach of duty, and neither did the State Department’s own review. I think when we took a step back and looked at both what the ARB found, but what the Secretary and his team has been doing over these past few months is doing more fact finding, going into what happened on the ground, but also looking, again, at the totality of these four employees’ careers at the State Department. Again, they’ve served in tough places. There were a lot of examples where they’ve had very exemplary careers here. So that was all looked at as we made this determination about what was appropriate.


QUESTION: Okay. But just – I guess when you stand back again and look at it --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- this is such an extraordinary thing --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- an ambassador killed under hideous circumstances, many things we – looking at the ARB, we can see management deficiencies at senior levels, et cetera. Wasn’t there a reason to go beyond just bureaucratic definitions and to actually make somebody responsible for this?


MS. HARF: Well, I think first I’d make crystal clear that the people ultimately responsible for what happened in Benghazi are the terrorists who perpetrated this terrorist attack. So, (a) I would make that point; (b) what the ARB did was look at our processes and look at our systems and make recommendations about how to improve and enhance our security in the future. So the ARB took a hard look at this and did make some determinations about these four individuals. That’s why they were placed on administrative leave and we undertook such a comprehensive look at them, at what they had done, and indeed, at their entire careers at the State Department. So clearly we take very, very seriously what happened that day. I think that should go without saying. And we’ve taken a look at the ARB’s recommendations and have reaffirmed their findings in this decision.


QUESTION: Marie.


MS. HARF: Yes.


QUESTION: The statement that was released on this last night and which was attributable to a senior State Department official --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- stated that Secretary Kerry, upon assuming office in February, launched this internal review of the ARB’s findings. That disclosure, in turn, raises a number of questions, which I’d like to go through with you in turn. Number one, who led this review of the ARB?


MS. HARF: Okay. Well, first, not – I would like to clarify exactly what that statement means. Secretary Clinton, obviously, was the Secretary when these four were put on administrative leave. When Secretary Kerry came into office here, he basically picked up the ball. It was a continuation of that review that had already been started. He wanted to take the time to get all the facts himself. He wanted to take the time with his senior team to sit down and go over the ARB’s findings in great depth and look into the situation of these four in their careers.


QUESTION: Stop right there.


MS. HARF: Yeah.


QUESTION: The statement said that he launched this upon assuming office. Now you’re telling me there was an ongoing internal review of ARB that Secretary Clinton transferred to him?


MS. HARF: I think you’re using the term “review” specifically. What we’ve been – wait. Let me finish, James.


QUESTION: I’m using your statement.


MS. HARF: Okay. Can I finish?


QUESTION: Please.


MS. HARF: Thank you. I think we made it very clear when these four people were put on administrative leave that there was a review process into them that was ongoing. Obviously – so that process was ongoing before Secretary Kerry got here. That’s been well documented publicly.
Point B is that when Secretary Kerry took office, he wanted to make sure that he himself and his senior team did a thorough investigation into what had happened, picking up on the work Secretary Clinton had already done, but obviously he would be the one making the decision, so he wanted to make sure he was acquainted with all the facts, and that we looked into all of the things that might go into a decision surrounding these four.


QUESTION: Okay. What was the actual scope of this review by Secretary Kerry? Was it just with respect to these four individuals or was he reviewing the entire findings of the ARB?


MS. HARF: Again, I think you’re using the term review in a way that I’m not using it. When I say review, he wanted to make sure he was well acquainted with all of the facts. He wanted to dive deeply into all of the issues involved with the ARB, which obviously now fell under his purview to make decisions. So it’s not like he was making a judgment on the ARB. That’s not at all what I’m insinuating. That he was himself looking at the ARB, diving into the details, and also gathering other facts that may go into his eventual decision about these four.


QUESTION: You just stated earlier in response to another question from one of my colleagues that he did engage in, quote, “additional fact finding.”


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: What did that entail? Were documents reviewed? Were new depositions taken? What kind of fact-finding mission are we talking about?


MS. HARF: Well, I think most specifically what I’m referring to is that we took – he and the team took a look at the totality of the careers that these four individuals have had at the State Department. Again, they’ve served honorably, had distinguished records, and all of that wanted to be taken into account. When, quite frankly, you’re making decisions about real people and their careers, he wanted to not only look at the ARB and what happened that day, but look at what they had done overall at the State Department.


QUESTION: Whose recommendation was Secretary Kerry following when he made this determination about these four individuals?


MS. HARF: Well, his senior team, and I don’t have a specific name for you about who led that. I can endeavor to get more details on that. If I can share them, I will. I’m not sure I can. But setting that aside, there was – his senior team looked at – took a look at the situation, looked at the four, looked at their careers, made a recommendation to him which he agreed with, and he ultimately made the final decision.


QUESTION: We have had in this briefing room --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- since Secretary Kerry assumed office, multiple discussions about the ARB --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- particularly in and around May 8, when the two whistleblowers, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Thompson testified before the Congress. And yet at no time did the State Department, either at this podium or in any other forum, disclose that Secretary Kerry had engaged in this process such as you’ve described it.


MS. HARF: I think we --


QUESTION: Why was that fact withheld from the public?


MS. HARF: Well, I would disagree with the premise of your question to start, but second I would say we’ve been --


QUESTION: What premise do you disagree with?


MS. HARF: Let me – can I finish and I’ll tell you?


QUESTION: Tell me.


MS. HARF: Okay. What I would say is we’ve been clear, every single time we are asked about the status of these four, that Secretary Kerry is undergoing a process in conjunction with his senior team and will make a decision at some point in the future. Every single time someone from this podium has been asked that, that’s exactly what they’ve said.
This, quote, “review,” whatever word you want to use for it, his looking --


QUESTION: I’m using your words.


MS. HARF: -- right, and I’m using it too – his looking at the facts, his in-depth look at the ARB and their careers are what played into this process of how he would eventually make a decision about the four. So there’s not – we have not been at all secret about the fact that Secretary Kerry has been leading a process.


QUESTION: Last two questions – you’ve been very patient and so have my colleagues – was there an actual final report of some kind, in some form, that was presented to Secretary Kerry prior to his making these decisions that the Department would be willing to make public?


MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer to that question.


QUESTION: Was there any kind of report at all?

MS. HARF: I don’t know. That’s the – I do not know the answer to that question.


QUESTION: Last question.


MS. HARF: I can take that question.


QUESTION: With respect to the two aforementioned whistleblowers, Mr. Hicks --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- and Mr. Thompson, what is their status now?


MS. HARF: I don’t have any updates for you on that. I can endeavor to get an update for you. Again, I don’t have details on that in here, but I can get back to you on that.


QUESTION: Is it not a fact that they remain in limbo?


MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer to that, James. I really don’t.


QUESTION: Marie, could you just, for the record, give us the names of the four? And also, is Boswell – is it correct that he is a political appointee?


MS. HARF: I’m not, from the podium, going to read out the names of the four. I know it’s been widely reported. Again, there are different specifics about political appointees. It is my understanding that one of the individuals is, but again, they’ve all been reassigned and will be taking up new positions going forward.


QUESTION: So political appointees can be reassigned?


MS. HARF: It is my understanding that that’s the case, yes.


QUESTION: Marie, I realize you can’t talk about some of these personnel issues from the podium --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- but can you, generally speaking, give us a sense of the reassignments of these four, whether any of them, say, have anything to do with security at any U.S. diplomatic post abroad?


MS. HARF: I can’t give you any details about their specific onward assignments.


QUESTION: Why?


QUESTION: Do any of these reassignments since the Secretary decided that they couldn’t remain in the positions they previously held – what defined the parameters for where they would be allowed to work?


MS. HARF: Well, these four individuals will be or have been reassigned to positions that are best suited to their experiences and capabilities. Again, I can’t share with you further details about their onward assignments.


QUESTION: Were these positions existent prior to them assuming the duties of this – these new positions?


MS. HARF: I believe so, but I’m not positive. I can double-check that.


QUESTION: Have they been asked to sign nondisclosure agreements?


MS. HARF: I don’t know that, but I ask that – I don’t know that specifically on this. I have said from this podium categorically that no State Department employees have been asked to sign additional nondisclosure agreements in addition to the standard protection of classified information one everyone signs upon entering State. I have said --


QUESTION: And that still stands?


MS. HARF: Correct, yes, that still stands.


QUESTION: One more on that --


QUESTION: And Marie, just one – another to make sure we understand: You can’t say this because of rules and regulations, internal personnel regulations?


MS. HARF: Yes, correct.


QUESTION: Okay.


MS. HARF: Yes.


QUESTION: Did the Secretary feel that to take any action beyond having placed the four on
administrative leave would be to make scapegoats of them?


MS. HARF: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. He – when he came into the State Department, there were four people on administrative leave. When we’re talking about this case, it’s a very limited case of these four people. I think broadly speaking, what you’ve seen the Secretary do is continue the implementation of the additional embassy security measures that we’ve talked about a lot in here that are in the ARB. So what he’s focused on is moving forward, figuring out the best way to enhance our security, to keep working with Congress to do so, and that’s really been his main focus from this point on.


QUESTION: And does he feel that “breach of duty” should be the appropriate standard here?


MS. HARF: Appropriate standard for what?


QUESTION: For deciding – I mean, you’ve made – you’ve emphasized several times that --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- as with the ARB, they found that there was no breach of duty.


MS. HARF: Correct.


QUESTION: The ARB also found that it believed that the criteria – and I regret I don’t have them in mind --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- specified under the law --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- set too high a bar for taking action against individuals who might have failed to properly do their jobs. And I’m wondering if – so I don’t remember if breach of duty is what was in the law and if they therefore felt that that was too high a standard – but since you keep emphasizing that the Secretary agrees with the ARB that there was no breach of duty --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- I wonder if that – ultimately, if the Secretary feels that should be the standard, that breach of duty is what would trigger some kind of action in such a case.


MS. HARF: Well, I don’t want to, I think, draw conclusions from this, broadly speaking, about how the Secretary looks at disciplinary action for employees. I think in this case, he was presented with a very limited situation of four employees. The ARB had made some conclusions about their performance, and the review that we undertook reaffirmed that when we made a decision about the four.
Going forward, I don’t have anything new to announce in terms of how we will make these decisions in the future. Needless to say, I think the Secretary, again, as I said, is focused on taking the recommendations in the ARB, particularly on the embassy security recommendations, and moving forward with those.


QUESTION: Marie, one last way to --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- sort of approach this: To the average American sitting at home, they see four dead Americans, including our Ambassador; they see that there’s some kind of blue-ribbon panel that’s set up, we know as a function of a congressional mandate called the Accountability Review Board --


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: -- and at the end of it, not one person is held accountable. How do you explain that to the American people?


MS. HARF: Well, again, I would make two points, James. The first is that we’ve all made clear that we are focused on bringing to account those that were responsible for this tragedy in Benghazi, and that means finding the terrorists who actually perpetrated this horrible tragedy, period.
Secondly, we take a very thorough and careful review of what happened that day, and we all wish there was some easy answer, just one thing we could have pointed to that would mean today that those four Americans are still here, but we have to let the facts lead where they do. And in this case, the Secretary took a very thorough look at four people and their situations, and made a determination on what their future should look like.
Clearly, there is nobody in the world that is more saddened and upset and cares more about what happened that day than the people who work in this building, and believe me, they are doing everything in their power to bring to account those that were actually responsible for what happened that day.


QUESTION: So there’s not a single – amongst the 20,000 worldwide State Department employees, there’s not a single one of them who acted foolishly, stupidly, neglectfully, so much so that they should lose their job over it?



MS. HARF: James, clearly the Accountability Review Board indicated there were deficiencies. Clearly, things could have been done better. I think that’s patently obvious to everybody who’s followed this for almost a year now. But again, we have to let the facts lead where they may, and these are people with real lives and real careers, and we can’t just take action that’s not warranted against them just to make us all feel better. That’s not the way the process works, and quite frankly, we owe it more to our diplomats serving all around the world to have thorough processes and to look at all of this from an independent lens, which is exactly what the ARB did.


QUESTION: Can we go to another topic?


QUESTION: Oh, just one more?


QUESTION: Can we go to Egypt?


QUESTION: Just one more?


MS. HARF: Yeah, we’ll go to Egypt next.


QUESTION: Marie, then, in a way, I guess, is it too much to say that the entity that is being held responsible is the entire State Department and the system that is here that failed? Is that correct?


MS. HARF: Well, I don’t know if I would term it exactly that way, Jill. I think we’ve been clear that there are additional steps that the ARB recommended that we agree with that we need to take, and as you all know, Congress right now is debating different ways to further enhance our embassy security. That’s what we think everybody should be focused on going forward. That’s what’s really, in the future, what’s going to be important on the ground.
So I don’t know if I would use those words. Clearly, everybody – every single State Department employee – felt a profound sense of loss that day and has ever since. But what they’re focused on now is making sure that we do everything in our power to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.


QUESTION: Walk us through some of the steps that you’re taking that the Accountability Review Board --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- recommended that you are in fact taking.

MS. HARF: Yep, I can walk through a couple of them, and we have, I think, more detail on this if folks would like it after the briefing.
We’re bringing on more security personnel and enhancing their training. There were 29 recommendations, I should underscore here, that the ARB put forward. We’re putting more Marines at our high-threat diplomatic posts. We’re making sure that protecting our people is a priority mission for them. We’re working more closely with our Defense Department partners on supporting our missions before, during, and after crises. We’re upgrading our facilities and building new embassies and consulates, and we’re making sure that concerns about safety and security always get the attention they need.
So I would also encourage everyone to take a look at the unclassified ARB that’s out there for everyone to read their recommendations. We’ll continue working with Congress to enhance our security going forward.





 The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.






benghazi
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq